Scan barcode
Reviews
Henry V, War Criminal? and Other Shakespeare Puzzles by Stephen Orgel, Cedric Watts, John Sutherland
psalmcat's review against another edition
4.0
I've read a lot of Shakespeare, not by any means all of his plays. Luckily Sutherland and Watts start with the well-known ones--Anthony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Hamlet--before moving to Titus Andronicus at the end. I found myself reading chapters about puzzles in plays I've never bothered to read, because they had a fascinating hook. The one in Titus deals with cannibalism, making me think perhaps I should read it!
There are no surprises here. He and Watts deconstruct some of the confusing aspects of Shakespeare's plotlines. For instance, on chapter--on Hamlet--is entitled "Where is the Ghost from? Is he stupid? and: Is Hamlet really Hamleth?" It delves into what 16th century Christians thought ghosts were (devils, sent from hell), whether he was malevolent or benevolent, and where Shakespeare got his plot idea.
Then there is the chapter on Romeo and Juliet entitled "What's in a name? Why does Juliet confuse 'Montague' with 'Romeo'?" The lines in question are:
I love this stuff. I still have a mental picture of Shakespeare rolling his eyes and laughing at all the ink spilled in pursuit of his 'real meaning.' I'm sure he had plenty of intent, but he was trying to entertain his audience, too, and sometimes things just didn't hold perfectly together.
There are no surprises here. He and Watts deconstruct some of the confusing aspects of Shakespeare's plotlines. For instance, on chapter--on Hamlet--is entitled "Where is the Ghost from? Is he stupid? and: Is Hamlet really Hamleth?" It delves into what 16th century Christians thought ghosts were (devils, sent from hell), whether he was malevolent or benevolent, and where Shakespeare got his plot idea.
Then there is the chapter on Romeo and Juliet entitled "What's in a name? Why does Juliet confuse 'Montague' with 'Romeo'?" The lines in question are:
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?Since she's really asking why he has to be a Montague, why is she asking why his name is Romeo? That is 'explained' (not very well, I think), but they authors also delve into his name and let us in on a secret: "Romeo" at that time was well-known to mean 'pilgrim ... going to Rome' or the Holy Land. If that's not meaningful, you'll have to go read the scene where they first meet each other.
Deny thy father and refuse thy name,
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet"
I love this stuff. I still have a mental picture of Shakespeare rolling his eyes and laughing at all the ink spilled in pursuit of his 'real meaning.' I'm sure he had plenty of intent, but he was trying to entertain his audience, too, and sometimes things just didn't hold perfectly together.
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review against another edition
4.0
This book does present interesting ideas and proposed solutions for some of the issues in Shakespeare’s plays. However, I have take issue with the statement about Lady Macbeth. What in nine hells is the phrase “only a woman" suppose to mean? Wonderful talks about Juliet’s age, about the time in JC, but Lady Macbeth is only a woman and is, therefore, frightened of blood which drives her bonkers? Did you read Titus? I know you read R&J.
Okay, got that out my system. This book is really worth reading. The essays about Othello and Hamlet are interesting and give additional perspective to the play. There does seem to be a misreading of Cleopatra - how sexual would she be with children in tow, and if you read the play, she does love to act.
Outside of commenting on perhaps the two most famous female characters in Shakespeare’s plays, most of the comments are good and worth reading for any student of Shakespeare. Sections on Hamlet are really good.
Okay, got that out my system. This book is really worth reading. The essays about Othello and Hamlet are interesting and give additional perspective to the play. There does seem to be a misreading of Cleopatra - how sexual would she be with children in tow, and if you read the play, she does love to act.
Outside of commenting on perhaps the two most famous female characters in Shakespeare’s plays, most of the comments are good and worth reading for any student of Shakespeare. Sections on Hamlet are really good.
More...